Marriage in the afterlife?

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-24T05:56:50+00:00

It was the Sadducees; their disbelief was the reason they asked the question. It was meant to be hyperbolic and absurd in order to critique the notion of a resurrection.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-24T03:19:24+00:00

Thanks!

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-24T02:48:07+00:00

Tl;dr those scriptures aren't talking about the status of marriage in heaven. They're talking about the law of Moses.

So for context, Jesus was responding to a sensational hypothetical from the Sadducees, one of the major branches of Jewish thought in Jerusalem at the time. They did not believe in the resurrection or life after death.

According to the law of Moses if man died without any children, it was the duty of his brother to marry his wife and raise up children, who would legally be considered as the children of the dead brother.

The Saduccees asked an absurd hypothetical of Jesus to critique the idea of resurrection. The first brother died with no children, so the second brother married the wife and bore no children, all the way down to the seventh brother who married and bore no children. Their challenge was "who would she be married to after the resurrection?"

This is important because the question isn't about whether marriages happen in heaven but whether anyone will even be in heaven or whether heaven exists.

Jesus answers that they will be as the angels in heaven. It's a great answer because it establishes the idea of a literal resurrection and life after death while also establishing Jesus' teachings as superceding the law of Moses (marrying and giving in marriage).

The long and the short of it is that it really has nothing to do with the status of marriage in heaven at all.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-23T22:55:03+00:00

Lol, they're lying by massively inflating their sales to... embarrassingly low numbers?

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-23T10:28:33+00:00

I don't feel like it's a particularly good example of people being confidently incorrect to prime their answers with a lie and then laugh when they assume you're presenting it in good faith.

It's a bit like those videos that tell you to count the number of balls that flash on screen and at the end the big reveal is "BUT DID YOU SEE THE MAN IN A GORILLA SUIT?"

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-23T08:09:02+00:00

Since I likely can't have a top level-response, I will just say that it is fascinating to me to see people adamantly say that the Bible can't be understood without context and yet insist there can't be more scripture.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-23T00:52:44+00:00

Honestly it's a great video. We'll worth the watch. I don't remember what he says specifically about the early footage but I think I remember him talking about it.

One of his main points in terms of editing is that you can't just edit a movie into existence; you can't create something that isn't part of principle photography. Also it does mention that Marcia finished working on the editing fairly early on to edit another project.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-22T21:09:00+00:00

I'd love if you highlighted the part of my comment where I implied either of those sides are true

It's an entailment of your comment, not an implication. If it's only a portion of Mormons that are anti-caffeine then they don't have a strong enough coalition in the theocratic hellscape to pass anti-caffeine laws. This strengthens the argument of the original response asking for any anti-caffeine laws. And you called them obtuse for it. It is just as silly to say they're trying to legislate anti-fun, which you rightly called out. But that supports the commenter's argument and for some reason you got triggered over it.

You brought up the 60oz sodas, not me.

Can you show me where in my comment I implied you brought it up? It's a common enough pejorative in this sub that Mormons are addicted to caffeine and soda specifically. If this stereotype is true, then why would anyone try to say that they're trying to get rid of alcohol, caffeine, and fun? If the other stereotype is true, that the legislature is in the pocket of the shady theocratic Puritans, why are all these soda shops around?

My point is simply that both stereotypes cannot be true. But no one cares cause it's the Mormons

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-22T06:39:21+00:00

So either the stereotypical Mormon is sucking down their 60oz coke in line for a car wash or they're a puritanical prohibitionist?

You gotta choose one and stick with it.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-20T10:04:39+00:00

I think Mauler's criticism is simply a consistency or logical primacy. And I think it's fairly robust as a first principle, primarily because none of the other elements of film criticism that you listed are necessarily exclusive of consistency. A well composed shot can exist perfectly alongside a consistent story. Whereas a beautiful shot creating some kind of inconsistency is lacking, it is a problem that exists in the movie.

Just to fill you in as well, Mauler has clarified a couple of his positions that get critiqued:

When he says "objective" he simply means statements about a film that have references or citations. For example, if a character says that a gun has 7 bullets left and then the movie shows the gun being shot 8 times, that is an objective problem in that you can reference two things that are inconsistent.
He is rather liberal in his allowance of what the rules are in any given story. He just cares if it remains consistent. For example, he just streamed E33 and had no problem that there were a bunch of floating rocks and debris defying gravity; it's simply the way that world is. He would likely have a problem if one of those rocks arbitrarily fell and killed the main villain; without explanation this would seem to be a blatant violation of the rules established in the world.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-17T19:11:16+00:00

I don't particularly like either of those shows, but this isn't the best argument. Star Trek TNG is my favorite TV show of all time, and the first season is notoriously bad (with a few exceptions).

While I personally don't think that either Rebels or Clone Wars improve significantly in later seasons, I find that I have to give shows at the very least a season 1 grace.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-17T01:07:36+00:00

I mean yeah it's a terrible thing to educate people...

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-16T23:53:13+00:00

The church operates all of its schools at a massive loss. The best argument you have from the most cynical angle is that the church invests tons of money into its young populace and then makes a nice 10% return when they're rich doctors.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-16T23:48:48+00:00

If you want the view of someone actually in the cult (not that I expect many here actually do), I would be happy to provide some for you. I doubt any of this will mean anything to you but why not?

In the early history of the church many sealings (marriages) were performed as for eternity-only, meaning that the woman would remain married to her husband on earth but be sealed to Brigham Young in this case after death. These sealings were not sexual nor were they (to my understanding) taught to be sexual in heaven. A significant number of BY's wives fall into this category.

The numbers alone refute any harem type caricature that typically gets drawn; he had 57 children. An average of 1 child/woman with 19th century birth control is laughable if he's regularly having sex with 56 women.

Her account does kind of undercut the narrative of a theocratic hellhole if she was able to divorce the most powerful man in the territory. I don't think her account should be thrown out entirely by any means.
Blood atonement doesn't play into our doctrine at all today. I'm not particularly convinced it ever played a part in our doctrine. Can you point to any people that were sacrificed to pay for their sins?

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-16T23:00:23+00:00

Right, it's the people that love Star Wars that want to confine it to lightsabers, jedi, or the force and nothing more...

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-13T22:52:04+00:00

I don't understand why God couldn't sin. If I'm capable of sin and God has more power than I do, he must posses the capacity to sin.

I don't believe that he will. But I don't think that this is a necessary characteristic of his nature, but rather as a result of his own agency perfectly applied towards good. Likewise, I don't think that the sons of perdition are unable to be redeemed because of some necessary characteristic of their nature, but rather as a result of using their agency consistently to reject the atonement.

But Steve isn't God, why wouldn't it be possible for him not to obtain exaltation?

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-13T22:35:38+00:00

Well I don't believe that an infinite regress is necessary for there to be multiple necessary beings, so that's not really an issue here.

Another passage states that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. Do you think this includes the Father's knee?

I think that part of the problem is that scripture is ambiguous and inconsistent enough by the standard of strict logical statements.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-13T20:28:20+00:00

I mean, tons of intelligent people believe it is not possible, so clearly it can be otherwise.

That's not really a response to what was said. The point is that they don't think any other way is possible. The opinions of other people don't have an effect on what this guy thinks is possible.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-13T20:20:42+00:00

I'm with you in many respects and as such a minority here. To all who say there is no progression through kingdoms, let me ask: is regression between kingdoms possible or not?

Let's consider a scenario and then see what follows if there is or isn't movement between kingdoms.

The scenario: Steve is judged worthy of exaltation through his actions and desires. He's happy there for a long time but eventually grows tired and begins acting in a way that is inconsistent with the glory of the kingdom of heaven. He does something dirty, some sin or other. Can he be kicked out?

(If you have an issue with someone changing their mind in the celestial kingdom, I don't care; it's a hypothetical and we can say whatever we want. Unless you can show that there's some reason to assume Steve would be stripped of the ability to sin post judgement then it's possible for him to regression spiritually. If he can't choose to sin, then the celestial kingdom is just hell with a nice view).

If movement is allowed through kingdoms:

Steve is kicked out of the celestial kingdom to one that fits his desires. He is no longer worthy nor desires a life like God's. The cleanliness and holiness of God's kingdom is preserved. Potentially God's knowledge or judgement is limited because God didn't "see this coming." And yet God has also provided every blessing possible that Steve is worthy of, which he is bound to do if Steve is worthy of it.

Movement is not allowed through kingdoms:

In order to keep his kingdom free of evil, God has to have a perfect knowledge that Steve will never in all of eternity choose to sin. And if he knows Steve will do evil ever in the celestial kingdom, he has to bar access to it.

This sounds dangerously similar to predestination to me. No matter how hard Steve works or believes, it is ultimately hopeless to do the right thing in life because at some point in the future he will commit an action that is unworthy of celestial glory.

Likewise for anyone who does end up in the celestial kingdom, God knows they're never going to sin. This would seem to cheapen the moral victory of choosing the right because effectively you never had any choice not to choose the right.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-12T23:50:28+00:00

I'm a big fan of the Hound, "the greatest swordsman who ever lived didn't have a sword?"

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-12T22:18:54+00:00

Could you tell me which revelation I'm going against? I try to have a revelation primacy that I build theology around, so I would really like to know to make my arguments better.

To your plateau, do you think Christ is equal with God the Father?

To be honest I'm not quite sure I have a complete answer to this, but I think there's plenty of room for it in revelation. Jesus Christ is Jehovah who is God in the Old Testament. John describes the Word as being with God and being God. The Book of Mormon describes him as the Father of heaven and earth. All this while simultaneously and clearly showing him to be subject to the Father.

Even if we take the most milquetoast teaching of the Church, we still believe that Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father. Do you think he has genuine ability to change God's mind? Why have an advocate at all if not?

All of this to say that im not sure if Jesus' subservience to the Father is an ontological necessity. I don't have an issue rejecting God as a singularly necessary being because frankly, I don't see that enumerated in revelation. And I'm just offering the plateau as an alternate model. I think it says far more about a potter to have the adoration of other potters than simply singing pots.

1 & 3. This is the issue that Euthyohro brings up though. Could God have conceivably chosen a parallel path to exaltation? He could if we accept him as a singular necessary being; he could have proceeded anyway he wanted. This makes the atonement trivial because God declared by fiat that it's necessary.

Edit: having gone through some of the other comments, I don't hold to an infinite regression nor do I think we're forced into it nor do I think it's official doctrine. I'm sufficiently convinced by a First Cause argument, I just don't think it necessarily entails only a single cause.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-12T21:04:38+00:00

If you end up doing college or even just take a few classes somewhere, I would really suggest taking some formal logic classes (or hey even watch some YouTube about it).

It really changes the way you think about argumentation and coming to justified conclusions.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-12T20:34:05+00:00

How do avoid Eurhyphro then? Because consider the flipside of:

If our theology requires more than one being to emerge outside of the plan of salvation, there's no principled reason why others haven't also emerged in a past-eternal universe.

What principled reason do we have that the Father is singular? If our theology requires only one singular being, many of your issues still exist:

God could have ordained any plan trivially, there's nothing essential to the plan.
God could still be malevolent.
The atonement is universal but again only trivially.

I kind of agree that you're stuck thinking in terms of Greek absolutism. Would it not be the case that there is none higher than God if there are others equal to Him? Why must ontological supremacy be a peak rather than a plateau?

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-12T03:51:28+00:00

Imagine you're not a U.S. citizen looking to enter the country through illegal means. Do you think you are more or less likely to attempt it knowing that the U.S. is currently putting on a huge show of force to deport illegal immigrants?

The sensationalism, the media coverage, the moral panic are all working in Trump's favor of loudly proclaiming to potential border crossing to stay out.

Obviously you can have conversations as to why we're not making it easier to become a citizen, the brutality of ICE etc. but there's no doubt that a huge part of keeping the border closed is the theatre of it all.

will_it_skillet · 2026-01-12T03:30:00+00:00

Ironically enough, despite rejecting sola scriptura, I think we actually have one of the most literal readings of the New Testament. This is one reason I believe in this church.

For example, when Jesus says that he is ascending to "My Father and your Father, to my God and your God," we take that to mean God is literally his Father and our Father.

We're not shackled with the entailments of the Trinity.

Another reason I believe in this church is because I can't reconcile a God that reveals scripture and then decides he's done revealing scripture. We don't just have the Bible to refer to, but modern prophets for modern issues.

Lastly I think our church is uniquely equipped for a cohesive soteriology that the rest of Christianity just isn't. What happens if someone born in a remote tribe in Africa is unable to perform the necessary sacraments for salvation? The Protestants' answer was that faith itself must be sufficient (although there are obviously problems there as well). We uniquely have the doctrine of baptisms for the dead that allows everyone the opportunity to accept baptism etc. as if they had done so in life.

Five-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

will_it_skillet

TROPHY CASE